JZ's response to # 5

Hamlet, the character, has received much flak for his supposed inability to act.  While this criticism may hold some merit, critics must remember that this is a play.  If Hamlet were to murder Claudius immediately after the ghost informed him of Claudius' deed, well that would effectively remove a bulk of the play.  What would happen to the drama?  The plot?  Suspense?  Shakespeare was endeavoring to engender a play that would entertain the audience.  Sometimes this entails some unrealistic actions.  I am alright with this phenomenon as long as it keeps me in suspense.  In addition, critics also must remember that Hamlet is delaying his actions because he is trying to perform such a deed in a purposeful, effective, reasonable, and satisfying manner.  To act or not to act is heavily pending rational considerations, such as absolute certainty, or whether or not to effectively send Claudius to heaven, by murdering him during prayer.  Considering the former rational consideration, murdering Claudius without just cause would result in, as Walker mentioned, incredible turmoil throughout the kingdom.  In addition, murdering without justification would send Hamlet to hell and devastate Gertrude.  COntinuing on the note of certainty, which seems to be a rather prominent theme throughout the play, Hamlet needs conviction, because it was a ghost that told him of the murder.  Ghosts are mythical and fictitious beings.  Although Hamlet is feigning madness, we are given evidence that he might indeed be going a tad insane, (I definitely feel so) and therevfore, imagining a ghost is entirely plausible.   Perhaps the ghost was a figment of Hamlet's conscience, and was simply misleading him.  Therefore, Hamlet would truly need evidence.  (however, some of the guards also saw the ghost, and we later gain evidence confirming Claudius' deed, both of which undermines everything I just said)  However, also like I previously mentioned, this is indeed a play, and is intended to amuse, so such events are plausible.  Ultimately though, Hamlet does indeed kill Claudius, but at a steep price: his life.  Could it be that Shakespeare is suggesting that had Hamlet acted earlier he could have circumnavigated the ramifications?  Or could it be that Shakespeare feels that absolute certainty should always be a priority.  Perhaps the longing for a sense of certainty is the proverbial spark that keeps humans searching and living.  Like we discussed earlier in the year, humans read novels because books are rife with connections and meaning.   The meaning creates certainty, which seems to be something humans are longing for.  I feel that humans are inherently conservative creatures, and tend to act out of certainty, as opposed to hesitation.  (i.e. Hamlet)  This lack of conviction ultimately results in hesitation, for better or worse.  Many argue that it isn't very intellectually rigorous to say that the answer truly depends on the scenario.  I wholeheartedly disagree.  IN many cases answers are truly pending.  However, in this very situation hesitation did result in death for our protagonist.  Whether or not Shakespeare was insinuating at this theme, well, I cannot say.  I for one say that he who hesitates might be lost in some cases, but not others.  I feel that being impulsive is better in some cases, and being hesitant is better in others.